The impact of low-volume uterine lavage on endometrial biopsy classification

Effect of Endometrial Sampling Procedures on Subsequent Pregnancy Rate of Cattle

Endometrial infections are a common cause of reproductive loss in cattle. Accurate diagnosis is important to reduce the economic losses caused by endometritis. A range of sampling procedures have been developed which enable collection of endometrial tissue or luminal cells or uterine fluid. However, as these are all invasive procedures, there is a risk that sampling around the time of breeding may adversely affect subsequent pregnancy rate. This systematic review compared the pregnancy rates (PR) of cattle which underwent uterine lavage (UL), cotton swab (CS), cytobrush (CB), cytotape (CT), or endometrial biopsy (EB) sampling procedures with those that were not sampled. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol, relevant databases, including Pubmed, Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, VetMed Resource-Ruminants, and Scopus, were searched. The outcome measured was the pregnancy rate after the collection of endometrial sample(s). Seven studies, involving a total of 3693 cows, fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and allowed the comparison of PR between sampled (n = 1254) and non-sampled cows (n = 2409). The results of the systematic review showed that endometrial sampling procedures can be performed before breeding or shortly after insemination without adversely affecting pregnancy rates in cattle. However, further studies are needed to validate this information.

The advantages of using cytospins of uterine lavage fluid for the diagnosis of equine endometritis

Uterine lavage (UL) is a routine diagnostic procedure for endometritis. In UL the fluid is centrifuged and the sediment smeared. Samples prepared in cytocentrifuges, the so-called "cytospins", are useful for evaluating cells in fluids, but never been used in UL. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of cytospins after UL, comparing automatic versus manual cytocentrifuges, and to determine their value for the diagnosis of endometritis. The study was divided in two parts. Firstly, UL was performed in 16 mares and a small part of the retrieved fluid was cytocentrifuged in an automatic (PreCyto) and manual (PreMan) cytocentrifuge, whereas the remaining fluid was centrifuged. After that, the sediment was divided into three quotas. One quota was smeared, one was processed in an automatic cytocentrifuge (PostCyto) and the last quota was cytospinned in a manual apparatus (PostMan). Cytospins obtained were scored for cellularity, cell preservation, presence of inflammatory cells, bacteria and contaminants; results were compared with sediment smears. Secondly in this study, the best cytospin method was compared with sediment smears in another group of 13 mares, which had endometrial biopsy after UL. Agreement between sediment smears and cytospins was poor to moderate. Compared to sediment smears, cytospins were more cellular, with better morphological details. Urine crystals and fecal contamination were detected more often in cytospins (especially PostCyto and PostMan). No differences in the percentage of inflammatory or epithelial cells existed. PostMan was considered the best method to evaluate UL fluid and it had higher sensitivity (80%), compared with sediment smears (60%), for diagnosing endometritis. Cytocentrifugation offers significant advantages over sediment smears and the manual cytocentrifuge is well suited for horse stable conditions.